Ya but people who make multi millions or even billions are getting their tax cuts extended and the middle class is getting a hatchet. Even if they are deserved cuts to inflated bureaucracies just the concept seems immoral. The richest 1 or 2 percent control 70% of the wealth in this country and they make their money from the consumers. In the 50's when the middle class was strong the tax rate on the wealth was 70% and now its 32%. There should be some medium that doesnt consist of the rich getting richer and the middle class getting the shaft.

Almost 3/4 of those surveyed said to raise taxes people making over 250,000 a year.

Easy to vote yes when you make less than $250,000 a year. I for one do not make 250,000 a year and I would vote no. TO me, that's not fair. These people made money and the haters shouldn't hate.

They made that money because of the consumers ability to purchase goods and services. The consumer needs to be empowered to purchase and cover their credit debts. We cannot continue to grow income gaps or we you have goods on the shelf and nobody to pay for them and then guess what happens. More government subsidizing.

Almost 3/4 of those surveyed said to raise taxes people making over 250,000 a year.

Easy to vote yes when you make less than $250,000 a year. I for one do not make 250,000 a year and I would vote no. TO me, that's not fair. These people made money and the haters shouldn't hate.

They made that money because of the consumers ability to purchase goods and services. The consumer needs to be empowered to purchase and cover their credit debts. We cannot continue to grow income gaps or we you have goods on the shelf and nobody to pay for them and then guess what happens. More government subsidizing.

Nowhere do you mention consumers taking responsibility for there finances.

Forget percentages. Lets talk dollars. A person making a million bucks pays $300,000+ in taxes versus a person making $100,000 paying less than $30,000 and getting all sorts of breaks and credits.

Im talking more about your super elite. But OK the current tax rate probably would be fine if the government was somewhat efficient. But its not so who gets stuck in the middle? Now we can't progress in our state. Its inexcusable the money is out there to do this thing. 400 people making as much as 100 million working people and your cutting things that would stimulate the economy. If enough people fall out of the middle class its going to be a serious problem

Im talking more about your super elite. But OK the current tax rate probably would be fine if the government was somewhat efficient.

So people who worked hard, came up with a new idea and developed it into a highly successful business or people who went to medical school for 12 years to get a PhD or people who worked their butt off to move up the corporate ladder to become a corporate executive should give away more of their hard earned money because the government is inefficient? They should be financially penalized for something that isn't their fault? That's an absurd argument.

Quote:

and your cutting things that would stimulate the economy.

We spent how much taxpayer money to stimulate the economy? Remind us again? Wasn't it like $700 billion?

What do we have to show for this investment in infrastructure and pet projects?

To say Republicans have zero interest is completely ignoring the fact that the Bush administration was completely reckless in its policies and entitlement spending on the poor and lower income portions of the working class.

A fact brainwashed ideological liberals forget or ignore in their blind defense of the Democrat Party.

Of course, with huge budget problems across the country, which segment of the population is The GOP asking to tighten their belts and accept cuts in pay, or loss of benefits, or loss of jobs and which segment is being asked to do nothing or is even getting further tax breaks?

Of course, with huge budget problems across the country, which segment of the population is The GOP asking to tighten their belts and accept cuts in pay, or loss of benefits, or loss of jobs and which segment is being asked to do nothing or is even getting further tax breaks?

They are asking everybody to be responsible, Why do the DEMs say one thing and then do the opposite?

Of course, with huge budget problems across the country, which segment of the population is The GOP asking to tighten their belts and accept cuts in pay, or loss of benefits, or loss of jobs and which segment is being asked to do nothing or is even getting further tax breaks?

Like people who make $30,000 a year but decide to lease a BMW and buy a 3 bed room, 2 bathroom house.

One of the biggest reasons we are in the economic situation we are in is because people chose to live beyond their means.

There should be no problem owning a 3 bedroom house on 30k. So where is the responsibility for the lender who makes these horrible loans where they make money hand over fist off gullible, stupid, or naive people? We don't live in a perfect world.

[quote="Rich]So people who worked hard, came up with a new idea and developed it into a highly successful business or people who went to medical school for 12 years to get a PhD or people who worked their butt off to move up the corporate ladder to become a corporate executive should give away more of their hard earned money because the government is inefficient? They should be financially penalized for something that isn't their fault? That's an absurd argument.[quote]

Im talking about people who have record incomes and declining tax rates. The top 400 earners in this country made as much as 100 million workers but have a lower tax rate.

LOL! So Gip is pulling stuff from thin air, kind of like our falling dollar to support all this BS, gotcha.

It all right there on the IRS.gov site buddy. We also have some of the worst infrastructure in the world and don't spend as much in relative terms as other countries. Can you look that up yourself or do I have to find that too?

We have record income disparity and we are cutting taxes on the rich whos rates are lower than people in the middle class.

You guys would rather privatize prisons and have those guys suck up your tax dollars for incarcerating people that could be working on roads and paying into the system? Cause thats what is going to happen

Your premise is misleading. Read the second link you provided carefully.

Yes, these people pay a lower income tax because most of their income doesn't come in the form of a paycheck.

They pay capital gains taxes, which is not included into the equation of the politifact write up.

Capital gains are results of investments from income they already got taxed for.

They used money they already had an made more money.

If people at lower income levels lived within their means, they could do the same thing. Not at the same level, but they could eventually earn supplemental wages from small investments that they could incrementally increase year to year.

The point is people choose to live beyond their means. But I figure you already knew that, you just can't refute it.

Of course people choose to live beyond their means and lenders choose to enable it, this is America the economy would not stand on its two feet without people who live beynod their means. You can't wrecklessly spend unless you wrecklessly lend.

Rich wrote:

So the government should be there to protect stupid people who don't bother reading the documents they are signing?

No what Im saying is the government should provide proper infrastructure to enable communities to make money so they can consume and pay debts.

Rich wrote:

And a government that wastes exorbitant amounts of money is not the solution.

Your premise is misleading. Read the second link you provided carefully.

Yes, these people pay a lower income tax because most of their income doesn't come in the form of a paycheck.

They pay capital gains taxes, which is not included into the equation of the politifact write up.

Capital gains are results of investments from income they already got taxed for.

They used money they already had an made more money.

If people at lower income levels lived within their means, they could do the same thing. Not at the same level, but they could eventually earn supplemental wages from small investments that they could incrementally increase year to year.

The problem is people are too lazy or uneducated to do this.

OK but my point remains the same. Incomes among the wealthy have skyrocketed and the country could afford with no negatvie impact on the wealthy to give us our MFing rail

Of course people choose to live beyond their means and lenders choose to enable it, this is America the economy would not stand on its two feet without people who live beynod their means. You can't wrecklessly spend unless you wrecklessly lend.

But the entire cause of this mess was people living beyond their means.

Even the liberal New York Times has journalists who see the big picture.

Quote:

It’s Time to Face the Fiscal Illusion

FISCAL policy debates often focus on technocratic questions about how much money the government should spend and when, yet the actual course of events depends not on the experts but on politics. The more that our government runs up unfunded obligations and debt, the more we are setting a trap for ourselves.

James M. Buchanan, a Nobel laureate in economics — and my former colleague and now professor emeritus at George Mason University — argued that deficit spending would evolve into a permanent disconnect between spending and revenue, precisely because it brings short-term gains. We end up institutionalizing irresponsibility in the federal government, the largest and most central institution in our society. As we fail to make progress on entitlement reform with each passing year, Professor Buchanan’s essentially moral critique of deficit spending looks more prophetic.

We are fooling ourselves most of all. United States government debt in public hands is now more than $9 trillion, but most people still don’t realize what it will take to pay that off.

Quote:

Keynesian economics talks of the “fiscal illusion” created by government debt: the issuance of such debt can stimulate the economy in the short run by encouraging a false perception of wealth and thus bolstering consumer spending. But, eventually, the books must balance. There is then a fiscal crunch, a sudden retrenchment of plans and great rancor over budgets, as we have been seeing lately at both the federal and the state level.

The famous Keynesian rejoinder, “In the long run we are all dead,” is less comforting when that long run comes into sight. Short-run planning is a hard carousel to stop, especially when there are frequent election cycles, but the federal government must act soon. Limiting Medicare and Social Security spending involves re-indexing benefits, adjusting eligibility ages, shifting the growth rates of costs and making other changes that have their full fiscal impact only over the longer run.

Yet we are postponing even these actions. Experts’ recommendations might lead us toward a fiscal smooth landing, but at this point the fiscal illusion — and not the advice of experts — is in control. So Professor Buchanan’s argument is ringing true.

Quote:

Now that fiscal constraints are starting to bite, many politicians are afraid to reform or even to discuss changes in the largest problem areas: Medicare and Medicaid. Yes, some laudable cost controls on Medicare are embedded in the new health care law, but they’re not enough. Most likely, we will end up making other spending cuts that won’t solve our fiscal problems — and in areas that could instead benefit from Keynesian employment stimulus. These kinds of knee-jerk, poorly reasoned decisions are what happens when fiscal illusion reigns.

Fiscal austerity may sometimes sound like a dogmatic religion, but fixed principles often help us do the right thing, especially when temptation beckons. Professor Buchanan argued that the real choice was between a religion of budget balance and a rule of illusion. Seeking an optimal technocratic path is not on the menu.

But the entire cause of this mess was people living beyond their means.

OK we can agree on that and you say people are stupid and in general that may be true they certainly can be ignorant, irresponsible, naive, and gullible OK we can agree on that so at what point do we have to protect them from themselves we can byotch about stupid people all we want but there isnt anything we can do about it, we can however prevent predatory lending that exploits these people.

My only real point here is that are capitalistic culture demands that people live on credit in order purchase a certain amount of goods and services to keep the economy afloat. Average AGI for the top 400 households has tripled from 02 to 07. The system does not work if all the money goes to the top and the middle class isnt grown. If our state is going to grow at its full potential it needs adequate infrastructure.

I can understand why the train was axed, but I feel like a huge opportunity for Polk county just slipped through our fingers and I also don't agree that a speed train can be compared to other trains. If this state really starts booming that train will be a big deal for commuters that don't want to live in Tampa or Orlando but work and or visit there. Tourist that do the "state of Miami" circuit would certainly use it.

WHy is the tri rail a total failure? Why would this train be different?

Its a speed rail. Its not something novel it provides real utility. If I am a retired baby boomer from Michigan and I can get a 2000 square foot house in central Florida for 50k and be 15 minutes from Orlando and Tampa without having to brave the most dangerous interstate in the country then it makes central Florida more attractive. Same thing with people looking to work in Orlando and Tampa but don't want to live there.

But the entire cause of this mess was people living beyond their means.

You say this, and yet you balk at me saying you exonerated the banks. You can't have it both ways.

I'm not having it both ways. You just take what you want out of what is said.

If people didn't want to live beyond their means, they wouldn't open themselves up to being "exploited" as you would put it. Greed begets more greed.

Banks are facilitating needs and wants based on what the market calls for.

In the end it all comes down to greed, but in your eyes the banks are evil and guilty and the people who choose to be superficial, shallow, drive the fancy car and pretend to be something they are not are being exploited.

Hint: they both contribute to the problem but the ROOT cause is individuals wanting to "front" what they don't have for some superficial reason or another.

If someone is making money selling hamburgers and people are buying them like crazy, should they stop selling them because they know it can be unhealthy?